<<
Is anyone aware of any other discussions where we are told to sin now in
order to do future mitzvas. It seems like a strange concept. we are not told
to plant kilayim so that we can keep peah, leket, trumah, etc. or to be boel
a niddah so the future kid will keep lots of mitzvas, or to drive to shul
shabbas to keep mitzvas of laining, davening, etc. This would relate to
telling non-frum to drive to a shul or class on shabbas so that they will
learn and in the future they will keep other mitzvas.
>>
I think the difference between these and Shabbos is 'efshar l'kayaim
sh'leyhem'. If we are not mechalel Shabbos, there is no possibility to keep
future ones. These others can all be kept otherwise.
I seem to recall that there is an extension of the Shabbos idea to pidyon
sh'vuyim. I have a vague recollection of a Tur, but I do not remember any of
the specifics.
Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center, Elizabeth, NJ

My apologies - if I remember correctly, both positions were raised by someone
on the list (though the word 'prohibition' was never used) though not
explicitely by you (D. Eidensohn). My objection was not to finding parallels
in Chazal for peirushim of Rishonim and Achronim - my objection was to the
insistance by some that these parallels were in fact the original, though
uncited, sources of Rishonim/Achronim.
Good Shabbos!
Chaim Brown
In a message dated 11/20/98 12:09:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
avodah@aishdas.org writes:
<< On the other hand, I have never asserted that the only source for
explanation of
verses is from Chazal. I have also never asserted that there is a explicit
rule
that it is prohibited to understand a verse - even in a critical
understanding -
without the justification of Chazal.
>>

Someone recently asked me:
Did Rav Moshe Feinstein Pasken that women amy not serve on the obrad of
directors of a shul?
If yes, can we get a citing (perhaps from the Baal Yad Moshe).
If not, is there another authority that publicized such a psak?
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Joel wrote:
I recently discussed the issue with the Rav of my shul - Rav Menachem
Zupnick and he suggested that this may be the mekor to ma'aseh avos
siman l'banim. How else do we know that such an idea exists? Here the
Torah goes out of it's way to show how children's actions are directly
related to the actions and situations that their parents went through.
-Help me out Joel (or someone else),
what have the banim done that emulates these achosi hi stories?
If anyone else has any ideas about achosi hi's significance, please
post.. It's been bothering me for YEARS!!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>There are many places in shas and the rishonim where the idea of
committing
>a minor averah in order to avoid, or to help someone else avoid, a big
sin
>is discussed.
>Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:48:42 -0500
>From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
>Subject: "good sins"
>There are many places in shas and the rishonim where the idea of
committing
>a minor averah in order to avoid, or to help someone else avoid, a big
sin
>is discussed.
Could you e mail me some sources? I find this surprising. I have never
seen a place where we tell a person to be O ' ver on an Issur De'orysa
even if there is a greater benefit. The only place I can think of is
doing and Avayra to save someone else for many other avayros. For
instance, if a Choleh Sheyaish Bo Sakaneh has to eat on Yom Kipper one
may Shect an animal for his (and you transgress one Issur) rather than
have him transgress many (as each Kezayis of meat would be an issur).
But here we know that Hallacha would say to eat (because of Pekuach
Nefesh) and were are trying to save him from diong many.
Ben
Bens22@juno.com
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Subject: settlers and Israel
I write this post with mixed feeling since I basically agree with R YGB.
Nevertheless I don't see how kiruv affects the question of settlements.
If most reform Jews would ask the orthodox Jews of Chicago to leave
because they are not welcome is there any requiremnt on them to leave
because of future kiruv work?
People are not required to leave their homes because many it might
help kiruv or make people upset.
Certainly Jews would never had lived anywhere if they couldn't stay
whenever much of the local populace didnt like it.
As I previously indicated most poskim including Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe
put kiruv on a low level when taking about possible issurim on the
non-religious part not to speak of issurim on the part of the orthodox.
Even Rav Auerbach allow kiruv only to override lifne iver.
This week the agudah in Israel (in Hamodia) also came out with a
declaration against the Wye agreement. I haven't seen the exact wording
but I know several of the rabbanim there also are against giving back
land - so it is not just the mafdal.
Again the possible prohibitions include - lo techonem and also
pikuach nefesh. Rab Dovid Cohen (of Flatbush) also adds chillul hashem
if we look weak givibg into the gentiles (preety much diametrically
opposed to Rav Schach).
Those rabbanim who favor returning land basically rely on pikuach nefesh
and Rav Schach who is against starting up with the goyim on
philosophical grounds (I dont think he had any halachic grounds
other than again pikuach nefesh). As far as I know this opinion is
a daas yuchid.
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel